Urwrongx1000
You probably will not be finding them. Why? Because you do not see them within your own existent philosophical world.
I don’t mind leading and producing. I just don’t want to be the one to do it 100%.
Like when you are the Driver, all the time, sometimes you want somebody else to drive.
With strong enough reasoning, you can lead anybody and anything.
Degenerates love areas where they can speak loudly and verbalize all their illnesses. Philosophy is attractive because philosophers and their consumers, thinkers, are the best listeners. Degenerates latch onto anybody willing to listen. So degenerates are attracted to a philosophy forum where they will be listened to.
It’s like homeless people, crazies, and bums on the street, ranting about god, that they are jesus christ, the second coming. They will latch onto anybody who listens to them. Most people, appropriately, ignore them. But the same happens online, and in forums. In this philosophy forum, the avenues can get clogged up with shit. People are ranting and raving, spewing inanity, nothing worth listening to. But that is the price of ‘liberal’ environments, without strict rules and regulations. And it is the cost of “free speech”.
What needs to be done is, the degenerate voices shouted down and driven away, or into silence, to make way for those who have something worth saying, something valuable.
Religion and genealogy go hand-in-hand. So people are fundamentally, biologically attached to their ideologies.
Everybody should be defining what they say and mean, extensively. That doesn’t really happen around here. I’ve seen countless arguments, a majority of threads, where disputes and misunderstandings occur based on flawed definitions that each participant has not spelled out, but easily could have, from the beginning. That’s amateur and mediocre. Philosophers have to be adept at spelling out definitions and clarifying differences, the reasons why people define concepts differently (almost certainly caused by differences of experience throughout life).
The problem is that people can believe they are free, when they really are not.
No amount of clarifying terms and definitions would solve such a problem.
Could be a coincidence.
It’s been mentioned already.
The popular agendas dominate the public arena, not necessarily ideas with philosophical content.
Perhaps popularity itself, is part of the problem. Philosophy is rarely popular. Or rather, philosophy becomes popularized over time, as it becomes watered-down (from old or dead philosophers) and then dolled out to the masses.
Today’s politics is the “new philosophy” from 100-200 years ago.
That harkens back to the point about “world = humanity”. A majority of the world’s population live inter-connected in such a way as to be completely subjective. People are out-of-touch with “objectivity” or “the world outside humanity”. Therefore people latch onto, becoming dependent towards, the rare ones who are most objective with their ideologies. It’s a matter of “he said” what and when.
It’s also why much of “academic” philosophy revolves around quoting dead philosophers and their philosophies. “He said it”. It’s never a matter of immediate personal accountability. Saying things now, and immediately explaining all the whys and hows. Like how modern ideologues can only go so far explaining their own ideologies. They don’t even know all of why and how they think what they do.
People repeat what others are saying. So you have to trace it all back to their sources. That requires digging into the past. Then you will discover that most of what is said today, was said 1000 years ago. But the words have changed slightly, re-ordered, rephrased, to make it seem as though it’s new now, when it’s not. So it is a very genuine challenge to discover “new” ideas, thoughts, and perspectives.
Content producers are very valuable in philosophy, because philosophical ideas and writing is not immediate. It takes a lot of time, testing, and challenging, to develop ‘good’ or strong philosophical ideas. At the very least, philosophers should be able to know the flaws of positions as they are pushed from the beginning. Any good philosopher knows how to Doubt, how to critique and criticize, how to disprove the premises.
I still cannot even imagine any “perfect” premises. Every single premise possible, that humanity has ever developed, can be overturned. There are no absolute truths.
Regarding immediate gratification, I know that Modern people want the products of a strong philosophy and ideology, without putting all the work in themselves. They want to latch onto Ideology X or Ideology Y, feel that it is right, and then claim it for themselves. For example, people are quick to identify as “liberal” or “conservative” based on these same generalities. People want to be right, but don’t necessarily care to know how or why they are right. The feeling of “being right” is reason enough.
Yeah, people want talking-points. They don’t necessarily want the “thinking” involved. You could challenge and press simple-minded people, as you indicate. You could force them into contradictions and expose foolishness. They won’t necessarily appreciate it though.
This applies to the point of matching ‘right’ leadership with ‘right’ followers, or right production to right consumption. A content producer needs appropriate content consumers. If people are low-minded, simple, stupid, then you waste time by reasoning to them and explaining yourself. Lower content deserves low explanation and justification. Dumb it down.
If you find the right audience then the content can be fully extrapolated and divulged.
It’s very, very easy to differentiate females from males, textually, without any other indication of gender.
For example, almost all (over 90%) of threads on this forum are started by men. Maybe even 95%?
It’s as simple as that.
Currently, there are only five women frequenting this site with any regularity while there are close to twenty men so it’s no wonder why there is less content from women.
If I have an idea, which has reached a critical point, I have to test it - there is no self-consciousness, it’s like being pregnant in the sense that it’s gonna come whether you like it or not. There is no sense of duty or fairness either, just urgency. But just as much as inspiration hits me suddenly, it doesn’t hit me reliably and often not at the right time. I will often be at work or away from a personal computer and the urgency has died out before I get the chance to write it down. You get what you’re given when you get it, sorry.
In theory. I don’t think leaders like to be led unless they are sure they’ve already gained respect and are interested in leading someone else into a leadership role in order to enhance their own leadership.
But none of this is really relevant unless you feel under-appreciated and are resentful that people aren’t following you, and you long to be a leader but in vain. Natural leadership just happens - you don’t plan who to lead and how, lions or otherwise, but you might be likened to a lion by others if you emerge a leader. Doesn’t matter if you aren’t likened to one though.
I guess, although I think it’s more to do with numbers, and the availability of shallow content that seems deep to the shallow. It’s the same as saying there’s no good music anymore, because it’s so drowned out by the hordes of loudest easy-option takers. Everything loses it’s specialness when it’s opened up to the masses. It’s like a philosophy class, in my experience - there’s always at least that one guy who has incessant inane questions and comments to offer, and too much of the class is taken up addressing him instead of moving onto something interesting and potentially outside the box.
This is a very under-appreciated truth, one side of a political debate will rail on the other as though they were absolutely wrong and themselves absolutely right, when really it’s mostly all been pre-determined by biology and they’re both perfectly valid in expressing their values. This is why I support free speech - silencing one group invalidates a whole avenue of valid ingenuity that too often benefits everyone in ways completely underestimated by the other side.
It’s been my displeasure to be dismissed by a once reasonably respected contributor to this forum, FC, on the grounds that I don’t find it sufficient to derive knowledge from second-hand sources and as such I don’t place a huge amount of value on reading up on the works of others - though of course I open my ears and listen out for interesting inspiration when I can. My approach is far moreover to attempt to derive it myself from as fundamental principles as I can identify - to make conclusions my own and as solid as I can from start to finish. His parrot, UrGod, tried his hardest to discredit some such conclusions in another thread, and only shut up once I found some quotes for him from another source.
I am reminded of a quote, not that the fact that it’s a quote legitimises it at all but I think there’s something to it, by Eleanor Roosevelt: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people”. I am with you when it comes to being against the “He said it” approach to “philosophy”, and also the “feeling of being right” and the plagiarised re-iteration of the ideas of others like you see on youtube.
What was/were your name(s) in previous rodeos btw?
Serendipper, have you had (a) previous account(s)?
No this is my 1st and only. I’m not sure why I waited until now to sign up 
Oh now I remember… women, friends, and work. If I did anything like this it was intermittently on a motorcycle forum in the politics section 
I arrived just in time to be in the middle of a 6-year feud between James and FC. James and I got into a spat about the existence of infinity and I think there is a language or dialect difference affecting communication between FC and I, making it difficult to understand each other. Apart from that, I don’t have a huge complaint.
“Be careful reading health books or you may die of a misprint.” - Twain. Standing on the shoulders of giants is ok, but I don’t want to be too wrapped-up in other philosophers’ hangups. I like to do my own thinking and I think that’s why I’m drawn to these interactional dialogs because it puts me in a state of deep thought.
You noticed that too? I don’t want to be mean; he’s making good progress I think.
I think he’s arguing someone’s position that he heard and thought was cool at the time rather than arguing his own ideas. It’s perfectly natural in our culture and educational system which favors indoctrination over free thinking. I don’t want to embarrass myself admitting what I used to argue 
Yeah that’s pilgrim Tom’s point that it shouldn’t matter who said what because “appeal to authority”, but I still find it interesting to know the attribution and credit should be given lest someone think it’s your own work.
I’ll have to remember that. I’m not sure I’ve ever been in a debate where my diagnosis didn’t take center stage. “Oh you’re one of them, well they are stupid so you are wrong.” It’s a convenient method of dismissal.
In defense of that, sometimes we can’t articulate an intuition or suspicion.
Women seem to lack, well, for lack of a better terminology, balls. They don’t seem to “step up” and engage. Of course, that’s double-edged sword since they’re also more likely to admit defeat and accept correction which is the beginning of wisdom whereas men have more trouble with reproof. So it’s a mixed bag and I’m unable to tell who is better-equipped to be a philosopher.
If there are so few of us then it would seem to behoove us to learn to get along because unfortunately we do not have the luxury of picking the ideal companions with whom to share our passions.
And I need someone to disagree with me because if they didn’t disagree, then I wouldn’t have anything to talk about. But I don’t want them to disagree because they’re a dogmatic blockhead. Essentially, I share the problem that vexes all of humanity: how to have all good and no bad.
I don’t know how drive because I still feel like a newbie. How do I know I’m not singing Slayer in a Country bar? And my questions can’t be answered anyway. It’s always been the case that I can answer questions, but no one can answer mine.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
I think people come here to build a persona. People study philosophy, not simply because it’s fun, but to seem smart.
Or convert them.
For some reason every group is christian or atheist. I guess “those who know, don’t speak and those who speak, don’t know” is true lol
.
Yeah it’s like “truth”, people conflate several definitions. In some instances truth can mean “exists” or it can mean “a happening” or “a law” when really it’s just a property of an observation, but no one can agree on the definitions so they argue eternally about whether it’s absolute or relative.
It could be a problem of religion. Who is it that is asking if they are free? First define the “who” and then we can decide if they are free.
WendyDarling
My apologies for my late reply as I have been in hospital for the last few days.
I assume when you say authentic conversation we are talking with the interests of both parties at hand or more parties if it is a conversation between more than two people. Or maybe you are saying people that are actually interested in what the other people are saying to see what develops from it, it being the conversation - instead of talking past each other. Regarding high minded thinking - I think we would lose a little of our essence if all that communication involved was high minded thinking. Obviously it is important to incorporate high minded thinking into adult conversation and to a lesser extent those who are younger, else where would we be. Soooo, I agree that high minded thinking needs to be incorporated into everyday conversation, for sure, but we also need to trust ourselves and let our hair down so to speak and be a little relaxed - incidentally you would not need to be consciously aware of your high minded thinking as it seems to come natural to you - perhaps meditate on it occasionally is what the doctor should order.
Assuming that you are referring to the common agenda of the human race then there is no common agenda to easily speak of - that is to say that there is a common agenda that has become so watered down that it is nearly impossible to detect it. I might have to make a thread about this and similar subjects in the future.
It seems to me that the current common agenda is more about survival for the less rich and bragging about life for the more rich.
Someone should take ILP to the hospital 
Or we could give it our own form of resuscitation. I use ILP as a kind of main sounding board - or at least I have in the past.
They say that sometimes the simpler things in life are often the best . . .
. . . and I have seen evidence of this in some of the lighter conversations that I have had here.
Ok, I’ll get the defib paddles while you do the mouth-to-mouth 
Somehow, that does not sound so fair 
Ok, alright, I’ll split the cost of the chapstick with you 
Maybe start by breathing some life into Wendy 
OMG, I dont know what to say.
Get people talking more is what I’m saying, especially the women who aren’t as active.